Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Class 3 firearms are legal "fully automatics" .

I don't understand your point.


Shame an attack on one is an attack on all.

Fair enough. Like I said I am progressive like that. Each one of us thinks we have the proper approach and understanding of what is 'good'. Is what it is.


Give an inch they take a mile

And each inch will be evaluated and responded to accordingly with either support or dissent.


Can't better the world never will be able to better the world

I am sorry you feel that way.

I strongly disagree. In fact I think that apathetic belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and at the core of why we are slow to better it.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Hmm... What do Anarchists do after they Win their Hard Fought Revolution ?



....Put away their XBox and go to Bed.........



i297.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


He is saying full auto is legal . . . Fallacy that they are not. You can acquire one with enough money and jumping through bureaucatic hoops. Just as you will every gun that the gov wants to add through Feinstein.

Only the uneducated public (non-gun owners) will "believe" they are safer because the media will say they are now "illegal" and how great it is for the kiddies.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by neo96
 



You asked to show one, and I believe I did.

It just so happens the majority of anti-gun to me seem ineffectual towards saving lives, and infringe on freedom via guilty until proven innocent mentality. I am not a die hard constitutionalist like many here ergo I am definitely a "progressive", so I don't necessarily cringe if back-ground checks are in violation. My priority is bettering the World, not upholding tradition, and sometimes that calls for foundation changes.



Well if you said you were a liberal/progressive and yet a diehard constitutionalist I may be a bit more inclined to.. shall we say consider some of your points.....in that light ofcourse....liberal yet constitutional. However when someone says they are "definitely" progressive.....which means anti-constitutionalist in that they believe it is a document that flows with the winds of change and the shifting sands of time....then its just a liberal by any other name or some other name.....oh how did you put it..."bettering the world".



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Well if you said you were a liberal/progressive and yet a diehard constitutionalist I may be a bit more inclined to.. shall we say consider some of your points.....

Of course! Was that supposed to surprise me somehow?


I already acknowledged I represent the bad guy here. You don't need to spell it out.


However when someone says they are "definitely" progressive.....which means anti-constitutionalist in that they believe it is a document that flows with the winds of change and the shifting sands of time....


Beautifully put
Thank you for describing it better than I did with a lame descript of "definitely progressive". I like it.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell
reply to post by Kali74
 


Almost all of the obviously stereotypical "right-leaning" pro-gun (and by that I specifically don't mean everybody pro-2nd amendment) posts on ATS that I've seen recently show extreme symptoms of psychological "splitting"; that is dividing an issue/population/etc up into two extremes (black/white, right/left, good/evil) and insisting those are the only two that exist in a meaningful way. It's a very fallacious way of viewing the world.

I consider myself fairly liberal, perhaps a left leaning-centrist. That means I'm automatically bait to have insults hurled at me on many ATS boards these days.



Very clever post. I can understand that some liberals would seek a sort of absolution for their departure from the foundations of the republic and that insurance to our liberites the constitution. Considering one must be fallacious in their views, that being the underpinnings, to attempt to subvert the document while shielding this intent with "meaningful" views of the world not yet know....but in fairness.... in the noble quest for a utopia....The noble quest that has been the foundation of every rise to power of every bloodsucking mass killer form Hitler to Pot....and these foundations you would make it easier for such men to lay with your confounded dissimilation of the word freedom.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


I'm with ya. For me, I have to weigh my distrust and dislike of the State vs common sense. I most definitely do not like giving the State an inch of power over a person, but I can't say that I like giving a person who has violated someone else's Constitutional rights, a gun, either. I think 100% background checks is really the best thing we can do.

Having said that, I think it's also important that we shrink down the legal parameters of 'felony'. Violent crimes and Grand larceny should really be about it and a violent felon should be the only ones barred from legally owning a gun.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


He is saying full auto is legal . . . Fallacy that they are not. You can acquire one with enough money and jumping through bureaucatic hoops.


Getting a class 3 for a private citizen without owning a business is so daunting (and in many cases impossible) that it can be considered effectively illegal.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jsipprell
reply to post by Kali74
 


Almost all of the obviously stereotypical "right-leaning" pro-gun (and by that I specifically don't mean everybody pro-2nd amendment) posts on ATS that I've seen recently show extreme symptoms of psychological "splitting"; that is dividing an issue/population/etc up into two extremes (black/white, right/left, good/evil) and insisting those are the only two that exist in a meaningful way. It's a very fallacious way of viewing the world.

I consider myself fairly liberal, perhaps a left leaning-centrist. That means I'm automatically bait to have insults hurled at me on many ATS boards these days.



Very clever post. I can understand that some liberals would seek a sort of absolution for their departure from the foundations of the republic and that insurance to our liberites the constitution. Considering one must be fallacious in their views, that being the underpinnings, to attempt to subvert the document while shielding this intent with "meaningful" views of the world not yet know....but in fairness.... in the noble quest for a utopia....The noble quest that has been the foundation of every rise to power of every bloodsucking mass killer form Hitler to Pot....and these foundations you would make it easier for such men to lay with your confounded dissimilation of the word freedom.


Yeah. I claim Godwin's Law; especially in light of exactly the type of absolutism I was alluding to.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Logarock

Well if you said you were a liberal/progressive and yet a diehard constitutionalist I may be a bit more inclined to.. shall we say consider some of your points.....

Of course! Was that supposed to surprise me somehow?


I already acknowledged I represent the bad guy here. You don't need to spell it out.



But you will repeat it in the hope that i will not account you the embryonic facilitator of tyranny that you must certainly be.....and then granting you leave under the cloke of finding some knew way of thinking that will raise up from the afterbirth of the result of a union of liberal and constitutional minds. Like the famed succubus stealing the children of freedom into tyrannies dark night never to be seen again.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jsipprell
reply to post by Kali74
 


Almost all of the obviously stereotypical "right-leaning" pro-gun (and by that I specifically don't mean everybody pro-2nd amendment) posts on ATS that I've seen recently show extreme symptoms of psychological "splitting"; that is dividing an issue/population/etc up into two extremes (black/white, right/left, good/evil) and insisting those are the only two that exist in a meaningful way. It's a very fallacious way of viewing the world.

I consider myself fairly liberal, perhaps a left leaning-centrist. That means I'm automatically bait to have insults hurled at me on many ATS boards these days.



Very clever post. I can understand that some liberals would seek a sort of absolution for their departure from the foundations of the republic and that insurance to our liberites the constitution. Considering one must be fallacious in their views, that being the underpinnings, to attempt to subvert the document while shielding this intent with "meaningful" views of the world not yet know....but in fairness.... in the noble quest for a utopia....The noble quest that has been the foundation of every rise to power of every bloodsucking mass killer form Hitler to Pot....and these foundations you would make it easier for such men to lay with your confounded dissimilation of the word freedom.


Yeah. I claim Godwin's Law; especially in light of exactly the type of absolutism I was alluding to.



Thats not absolutism my man thats liberty speaking. You have stated your position and I mine. Still want to talk?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



embryonic facilitator of tyranny that you must certainly be.....

Like the famed succubus stealing the children of freedom


You're really painting that picture aren't you.


Yes we get it. Anyone that doesn't view the US Constitution as infallible and divine as their other Good Book is a demon.

We don't need to drag how horrible I am any further. It will be tedious to the other readers.

Let's talk about guns. And hell, if you are up for it, guns in relationship to anarchism or other 'definitely progressive' ideologies.

I find it amusing (and perhaps later frustrating) that many of the pro-gun people here refuse to acknowledge the existence of other pro-gun people on the board because they don't wear the same stripes.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jsipprell
 


I'm with ya. For me, I have to weigh my distrust and dislike of the State vs common sense. I most definitely do not like giving the State an inch of power over a person, but I can't say that I like giving a person who has violated someone else's Constitutional rights, a gun, either. I think 100% background checks is really the best thing we can do.


Considering the lame results that background checks have demonstrated thus far in their efforts to keep guns out of the hands of felons, that such an argument would be considered in the realm of reasonable discusion only shows that logic has escaped from our grasp here.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Logarock
 



embryonic facilitator of tyranny that you must certainly be.....

Like the famed succubus stealing the children of freedom


You're really painting that picture aren't you.


Let's talk about guns. And hell, if you are up for it, guns in relationship to anarchism or other 'definitely progressive' ideologies.


Well the gun issues in this country can really only be talked about in light of the amendment that guarantees its right. Thats a soild legal basis there. Trying to talk about guns in some liberal but pro gun frame is just so much sophomoric indulgence.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


J.
Shall not be infringed..... means what to you?
Four and one half years ago when Obama was
for sure "elected" the American people began
something that has not slowed down since then:

Purchasing 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition per month.

Now recently the membership of NRA is increasing at 8000
per day, and the supply pipelines of ammunition have virtually
dried up. Gun ownership is increasing at a rate unparalleled in the past.

Alphabet soup agencies are purchasing ammunition as well...whether this
is the administrations back door method of keeping it out of civilian hands,
or more sinister reason, only time will tell.

Numerous states are considering laws to strengthen the tenth amendment in re:
second amendment.

With the increase in private citizen weapon ownership, crime is taking a nosedive.

The second amendment is easy to pick on....
due to the fact that not everyone is prepared to
exercise the rights enumerated therein.

Due to the fact that most people DO NOT really ever want to
have to exercise that right for its ultimate purpose.
"To protect, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Due to the fact that unlike speech, security, legal representation,
due process, religion, and other rights enumerated in the
Bill of Rights, the ultimate exercise of the Second Amendment
means someone is going to die.

In all of history, no nation of people has fared well if they were
either unwilling or unable to defend those inalienable and unalienable rights.

Lots of restrictions, of which there are so many infringements now that it
boils some patriotic people's blood, do no good for civil, law abiding persons.

Politically correct verbiage is the beginning of restrictions of speech. Do you like
the political correct straightjacket placed on freedom of speech?

Then neither do I like the straight jacket proposals on Keeping and Bearing Arms.
edit on 26-1-2013 by slugger9787 because: increasing at 8000 per day, (it first read "Month")



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Trying to talk about guns in some liberal but pro gun frame is just so much sophomoric indulgence.


Then another thread would be more fitting for your thoughts would it not?

That whole on topic thang and all.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Holier than thou?



Fair enough. Like I said I am progressive like that.
Each one of us thinks we have the proper approach
and understanding of what is 'good'. Is what it is.


It is obvious that you have a world view that
assumes there is no ultimate absolute moral
(What is GOOD) law or code.

My world view is that there in fact is an
ultimate absolute moral code.

You probably yield to moral relativity.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
can you not wrap your mind around?


In the final analysis, the Pulitzer Prize winning news film from
the Viet Nam war which has a man kneeling blindfolded with his hands bound
behind his back, and another man standing behind him with a rifle pointed at
his head, who do you intend to be?
edit on 26-1-2013 by slugger9787 because: added last paragraph



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


He is saying full auto is legal . . . Fallacy that they are not. You can acquire one with enough money and jumping through bureaucatic hoops.


Getting a class 3 for a private citizen without owning a business is so daunting (and in many cases impossible) that it can be considered effectively illegal.



You are absolutely right . . . and I believe that is the purpose of the hoops and tax stamp. I don't own any class 3 firearms. After dealing with that nonsense during the first AWB, so I sold them in 2008 when the first "Obama gun scare" was going on. My M1A and Mini-14 do the same thing as my old cool looking M4 and Super V carbines . . . but, I do miss shooting them.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Holier than thou?

Let's see if we can see some of that in your post....


It is obvious that you have a world view that
assumes there is no ultimate absolute moral

My world view is that there in fact is an
ultimate absolute moral code.

Oh look there it is.


You probably yield to moral relativity.

Probably? You just said it was obvious.

I am not against universal morality, I just don't see evidence for it.

Now you probably, and erroneously, conclude from that, I lack good morals and ethics as a result.

In fact I am a very moral person. So who defines it, if it's not universal? Good question thanks for asking. Point me to a philosophy thread to discuss it with you.


What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
can you not wrap your mind around?

I can very much wrap my mind around that. It's quite clear. Like I said, I don't believe it's infallible. What part of that is unwrappable? I mean you just introduced universal morality into this discussion for crying out loud! Equating the Constitution with universal truth is what I can't wrap my mind around......

There will evolve instances where fundamental changes are the best thing to do in our society. That's always been the case. To think otherwise, especially in light of so many societal problems, is short-sighted and dangerous.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



a man kneeling blindfolded with his hands bound
behind his back, and another man standing behind him with a rifle pointed at
his head, who do you intend to be?


I don't understand what that means.

But I am taking the pro-gun side.

Even though some don't agree I am.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join